Intellectual Property Watch needs your financial support. As one of our readers, you know that IP-Watch plays a vital role in international policymaking on intellectual property and innovation through its independent, reliable, balanced and dedicated news coverage. But like other online news services around the world, the challenges of financial sustainability are high. Please help us continue our unique combination of high-quality reporting available as widely and freely as possible. Please read on to see how you can donate, subscribe or complement your existing subscription to Intellectual Property Watch.

An extended meeting of the Board of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) concluded today with a set of decisions (attached) showing that the Board went farther than just noting the UNAIDS secretariat report on intellectual property-related barriers preventing access to medicines. And the Board, after lengthy discussions, also called on UNAIDS to facilitate discussions on the high-profile report of the United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel for Access to Medicines.

Imagine your company just acquired its competitor for $100 million. Now imagine the company’s most important asset – its proprietary software – is subject to third-party license conditions that require the proprietary software to be distributed free of charge or in source code form. Or, imagine these license conditions are discovered late in the diligence process, and the cost to replace the offending third-party software will costs tens of thousands of dollars and take months to remediate. Both scenarios exemplify the acute, distinct and often overlooked risks inherent to the commercial use of open source software. An effective tech M&A attorney must appreciate these risks and be prepared to take the steps necessary to mitigate or eliminate them.

In a first-impression case with implications for international trade, the United States Supreme Court is set to decide whether the US supplier of a single non-infringing article used in an infringing product abroad can be held liable for worldwide damages under US patent law. The case hinges on the meaning of “substantial” and whether US law can extend beyond its borders.

Contributors

The annual “Intellectual Property Statistics for Decision Makers Conference” took place in Sydney, Australia on 15-16 November. After Vienna last year, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as the key initiator organised the landmark forum this time with the Australian Government through its national intellectual property office, IP Australia. In this environment where the Australian economy could recently mark its 25 years of continuous growth and where the government just launched a new “National Innovation and Science Agenda” in the form of a new tax reform package, we could follow panel discussions and speeches about how empirical evidence can be gained for innovation.